When did you get redpilled on renewable energy?

if it is so abundant and everywhere then you can market it. If it is abundant as you say then it can compete with non renewable sources of fuel. As it is now it simply cannot.

Either improve the tech behind renewables (which at this point is pretty bad) or wait until the price of non renewables reaches equilibrium with it and the choice is made through simpling prices in the market place.

this technology is obviously at such a good point many nations have turned off their nuclear and coal plants to switch to this

non-renewable = scarcity

We are not going to run out of non-renewables for a long time. The oil sands is a great example, there's a ton of oil there but because the price of oil is so low (because there's so much of it) that it's not being heavily processed. When we ever do start running out of oil, in a long long time, other alternatives become more viable as the price raises.

Renewables are lobbied against you dip

They are competitive but big petroleum would never allow it to compete, and that is because of corruption and capitalism

We don't use renewable energy because it only works in a very narrow spectrum of environmental conditions.

For example: wind turbines only work in a fairly narrow window of wind speed. Too stable, can't generate power. Too windy, need to shut it down so the motors don't overspeed and explode.

Solar is all but useless unless you're on/around the equator.

Geothermal has some legs but very few places where it's viable.

Until fusion is perfected, we're stuck with hydrocarbons and nuclear.

You didn't even adress any of the points brought up in the picture and threw out a bunch of strawmen

I bet you feel very smart right now

>They fucking rip up woodland and build palm oil plantations which produces a non efficient form of fuel, while also destroying the fertile land that it's planted on.

There are other, non-exploitive ways of using renewable energy, user. I understnad where you're coming from but try not to paint all enviromentalist with a single brush.

>In a non capitalist system, products would be made based on their environmental viability, their usefulness and their quality

>barely marketable
capitalism is based around supply and demand

if there is a demand for a product, someone can supply said product and get money for it. capitalism works, and always has worked. it only fucks up when the government starts getting too large and passes anti-competitive laws.

>threw out a bunch of straw men

Pls point them out, they're all valid points. Tidal power could work very well, but development and maintence costs don't make it viable.

And yes, unless it makes money no one is really interested in using it, that's kind of obvious m8. Nuclear generation is the best, safest and greenest available at the moment, but the majority of general public don't want it because of muh Chernobyl or muh three mile island or muh Fukushima

Thats the way its intended to work, but it has failed billions of starving people around the world

Do you not think there is a huge demand for food in poor countries and continent like Africa?

just like how universal basic income will lead to people being truly productive and showing their true potential to society when not shackled behind work

kek

>Renewable energy isn't scarce
Socialism, everybody

>Worldwide conspiracy amongst global powers that are at war with one another to promote using hydrocarbons for energy production
>or
>solar/wind is decreasing as a share of total new energy production in the world because it's not cost-effective

NOTHING escapes scarcity. Jesus fucking christ people are dumb. You'll have to mine elements that are scarce to build solar panels that won't last forever. The only jobs worth having are scarce. Fame is scarce. Food is scarce in our natural habitat. FUCK me man I can't do it anymore.

The only viable way to do that at the moment is to store it as a water reserve for hydro power. If we had better batteries you could be onto something.

there is a higher level of living now than there has ever been in human existence. To see starving people and say the system has failed, let us return to other systems which delivered none of this prosperity is folly

And thats why capitalism is shit
The real redpill is communism, Marx ftw

Higher level of living for the rich people, sure

africa can't supply shit for anyone, most african nations don't even have functioning power grids. the niggers are happy to pillage and loot, they don't care about improving their countries.

look at south africa. prosperous nation while the brits were in it, after apartheid the place quickly went to shit.

africa is lucky anyone even cares, otherwise they'd be eating the local wildlife like savages.

BP built the largest solar farm in the world using oil money. They were heavily invested in renewables because they recognize they're a power company, not an oil company. Then abandoned it because it sucked.

>muh scarcity
no

"renewable energy" requires infrastructure which has to be produced, so it's entirely compatible with capitalism.
This infrastructure is not eternal, it requires maintenance and being replaced in the future.

are you implying that the poor today are living at a point worse off than their parents? are you saying that the people of today are living in the same squalor and shit we did 50yrs ago?

oh wait im being trolled

why do we fall for this shit still

That's implying that scarcity is all that drives value. If the utility of a good is more than the dis utility of its production and it was in absolute abundance it would out perform all others in the market. Or simply

>I can cheaply make energy in great abundance (or at least at the same price as scarce energy)
>I can sell this energy below the price of scarce energy
>Scarce energy becomes less desirable and my market share increases

The reality is that most energy sources just aren't economically viable in large scale operations.

the average poor person in china lives a lifestyle that would dumbfound anyone born before 1600. the average poverty stricken westerner lives a life well beyond anything kings in the past enjoyed.

It's not talking about solar panels numbnuts, it's talking about things like fusion energy - build one functioning fusion reactor and hire a dozen guys to monitor it and you've got enough energy to power new york city for an infinitesimal fraction of the cost of what we use now

yea hes full of shit

A completely idiotic argument that is self evidently wrong. Muh abundance. If renewable energy is everywhere then how come I can't get any? Are solar cells abundant? Are windmills? Obviously not.

Lobbying powers and corruption

>Enviro-cucks pretend to know economics
Food is renewable in that it can be reproduced potentially endlessly, yet there is still scarcity. The same applies to renewable energy. If she was correct in that capitalism does not work with renewable goods, we would not have an abundance of food, paper, etc. The problem with alternative energies in the US is not the free market, it is the lack of a free market. The US government subsidizes alternative energy like solar and wind and allow them to stagnate and never advance.

my point stands

top 1% of people to maintain "fusion" reactor=scarce

elements to build said reactor=scarce

land to build reactor=scarce

market share competing with coal and fossil fuels=scarce
there is no such thing as renewable energy, more efficiency is something worth shooting for but everything else is a liberal buzzword.

Wrong.

There's no single country on earth where wind or solar energy production survived on the market without government subsidies. Due to maintenance costs they end up producing energy far more expensive than nuclear powerplants of fossil fuels.

Not to mention that trying to go full renewable creates the problem of having only one regulation method - storing excess energy and using it during peaks which is wonky because:
>the battery banks or reservoirs would have to be gigantic to adress the need appropriately
>battery banks(more reasonable solution for 90% of the world due to geography) have all their batteries replaced in a decade(COSTS!)
>any instance of breaking the balance in energy consumption will cause lots of troubles. Like imagine if you have energetic system that's 100% solar, now there was anomaly in summer, lots of rain - while energy production didn't go down, consumption did and congratulations - if the winter will be cold, you don't have surplus energy to use

Use nuclear as a baseload for renewables until they can take over completely

Solar and wind companies lobby for government assistance under the guise of renewable green energy. This allows them to avoid competition and avoid innovating for profit. They do nothing but waste taxpayer money.

>until they can take over completely
Never?

>have technology to produce renewable energy
>is often cost ineffective and worthless
>consistently relies on subsidies
>completely ineffective compared to nuclear power
>its the capitalists the world isn't green!!!

Maybe you will get more renewable energy if you reduce regulations

[Citation thats not breitbart or any far-right media site NEEDED]

Scarcity =/= demand

The price of the last 1000 gallons of gasoline would be $0.01 if everyone moved onto a new source and companies were begging people to buy their reserves. Taking her own words, a capitalist structure would take the "environmental viability, usefulness and quality" and set a price, then try to hype people up into buying it.

We don't use renewable energy because either its specific energy, production efficiency, or costs prohibit it from competing with current products.

muh renewable energy needs renewed though, it's just the machines (created using non-renewable energy) rather than the fuel.
all "renewable energy" is supplemental anyway, it can never provide all power because it is all intermittent

all that they do is increase energy prices in the host nation which forces the production of the "renewable" parts over to shit holes like china where they use far less efficient non-renewable plants

after a certain point using renewable energy causes more pollution than not using it at all since the non-renewable plants have to run so inefficiently to cope with the variation in "renewable" output

the only way renewable can work is at an individual level - individuals buying solar panels or turbines etc, yet we're still no where near the level of technology required to make this cost efficient because governments insist on subsidising "renewable" energy which cripples any chance of getting the better technology and cripples every other industry in the host nation

>but muh guardian articles

Strawman

This is not true at all

watch as op ignores you or simply says government corruption is why it doesnt work

>Lobbying powers

You mean the billions upon billions our gov has funneled into failing solar companies?

I don't ignore, I kindly asked for no strawmen but people insist on using that strategy

I wont be debating with trolls

nah it makes sense, if the government is propping you up with taxpayer money you're not going to go out of business if you don't make enough money, therefore if your entire business plan is shit you'll just waste money while doing nothing

seia.org/events/seia-southeast-federal-lobby-day

From the horse's mouth.

Then respond to my post here

RE was a meme - they don't even need to lobby against it; it's so economically ineffective that we just don't yet because we lack the proper technology to efficiently harvest RE.

A Sven who has never economics?

Color me cucked

Well you got it factually wrong from the beginning

Germany is a country where there are plenty of companies surviving the market without being subsidized

Sven, your nation is a craggy hole in the far north of Europe. You don't see the sun, don't have flat plains for windfarms, nor do you have the deltas that could be controlled for hydro.

Renewables don't work for you or anyone else. Their intermittency, unreliability, and high cost to produce fuck over anything.

We can put it this way: Over the past 5 years, the US federal government has given the solar industry an average of $39 billion and a tax break of over 30% to any individual willing to put the panels up. All this money has produced .5% of all energy production in the US (and probably just lines Elon Musk's pocket).

It's unworkable right now. Unless you find me a way to crank up the efficiency of photovoltaic and doesn't rely on better batteries, then I'm not going to have this conversation with you.

If renewable energy is 'free' and abundant, then how come it costs so much to produce and distribute?

Also, how do you plan to charge all of those electric cars at night time when people aren't driving them? What is the efficiency of a solar panel at night?

>The renewable energy sector benefited when the Alliance '90/The Greens party joined the federal government between 1998 and 2005. Support for renewable energy continued under all following governments, regardless of composition, including the current CDU/CSU and SPD coalition government starting in 2013.[19] The renewable energy sector was aided especially by the Renewable Energy Sources Act that promotes renewable energy mainly by stipulating feed-in tariffs and recently also market premiums that grid operators must pay for renewable energy fed into the power grid. People who produce renewable energy can sell their 'product' at fixed prices for a period of 20 or 15 years. This has created a surge in the production of renewable energy.[49] In 2012, Siemens estimated the total cost of renewable energy would come to at least €1.4 trillion (US$1.8 trillion) by 2030.[50]

>For the 2011–2014 period, the federal government set aside 3.5 billion euros for scientific research in the country.[51] Additionally, in 2001 a law was passed requiring the closing of all nuclear power plants within a period of 32 years. The shutdown time was extended to 2040 by a new government in 2010. After the Fukushima incident, the law was abrogated and the end of nuclear energy was set to 2022.[52] After the 2013 federal elections, the new CDU/CSU and SPD coalition in important areas continued the Energiewende of the previous government, but also agreed on a major revision of the EEG.[53]

sounds like it survived on its own just fine

Because of government regulations making it very difficult to start a profitable wind/solar energy company

And regulations keep coming from the chronies and corrupted people

Idiots like this don't have even the slightest clue what the fuck they're talking about.

News flash fucking idiot, demand drives price not supply. Demand for energy is always increasing.

>Germany is a country where there are plenty of companies surviving the market without being subsidized
Nope.jpg.

Still I'm waiting for answer for the biggest problem(regulation) because the production cost may be, eventually be fixed via technological progress. However the problem with energy output being more or less regular(solar) or dependant on weather(wind) and energy consumption being always a variable dependant on many aspects will never go away.

Take a look at my graph. This only shows the difference in 24 hour day. There's yearly peak as well(in winter, usually Christmas).
It's easier than starting conventional power plant. At least around here and I seriously doubt that Swedish government in all its progressiveness is worse at making it easier than Poland is.

respond to then :^)

>Demand drives
Like the demand in Africa for food because they are starving but the progress is still super slow?

Trickle down.

>renewable energy products aren't made of commodities, which are finite and mercy to basic supply/demand

Liberals and their black magic, apparently there's no costs associated with renewables whatsoever

Your entire post is full of non-facts, opinions, straigh-up lies and bait.

Then you are surprised I dont answer.

(You)

Already told you the prices are so high because of unneccesary regulations put on by corrupt and bought governments

>Like the demand in Africa for food because they are starving but the progress is still super slow?
The progress is super slow because west keeps sending them free food which drives its market price down and makes farmers go out of business. Later on banks buy out their land and start plantations there, turning the soil into sand and then they go away.

>Already told you the prices are so high because of unneccesary regulations put on by corrupt and bought governments
Tell me about output regulation user, come on!

Renewable doesn't mean free.
All those pricey green energy being shoved over are all much more $$ so they use the global warming as a fear propaganda. It was the same as ozone cfc case.

WHY ARE FLAGS GONE

NO GOD DAMNIT. I WANT TO BE ABLE TO IGNORE KEKS FROM SWEDEN, CANADA, BRITAIN GOD DAMNIT

They aren't?

It doesnt mean free, it has a base cost and a very low maintenance cost

It could easily be done without big petrolleum and bought politicians

Africa is poor and destitute because the majority of its people suffer under incredibly corrupt and exploitative regimes that essentially serve as the personal army and enforcers of a dictator and his small circle of elite supporters.
They are not capitalist systems. They are extractive, exclusive authoritarian systems which limit and abuse their country's people and resources for their immediate gain, as opposed to an inclusive and democratic capitalist society where markets are free and competition is encouraged, enriching the lives of all citizens. They are the system of North Korea, Cuba, the Soviet Union, Mao's China.

Read a book nigger.

>and a very low maintenance cost

Oh look, it's another "muh capitalist conspiracy is keeping us from living in a magical utopic society" conspiracy theory. This is just like that "muh secret illuminati companies are hiding the cure to cancer because it's not profitable" meme.

Renewable energy is perfectly congruent with capitalism. Renewable energy doesn't mean that companies are just inherently obliged to provide it for free, or that everyone gets handed their own free solar panels/wind turbines/whatever.

It just works like the capitalist energy system we have now, except it contributes less greenhouses gas into the atmosphere. Wow, big fucking difference. It's not like they're personal perpetual motion machines.

These people see the words "post-scarcity" and their socialist brains just default to the indoctrination. Too much "education", too little thinking.

Flags where removed for US users due to some new law or regulation, Cred Forums had a blast about last nighr

You live in a country with the NHS you fucking yank-wannabe. It's all about driving down costs because healthcare here is a budgetary black hole, if they found a cure for obesity they would push that like no tomorrow.

Which part is an opinion, a non-fact and a lie? :^)
Is anything that doesn't support your world view an opinion, non-fact and lie?

Wait so let me get this straight, you recognize government abuse through lobbyists and regulations, but want to have the government regulate in favor of renewable energy?

I'm in the US and I can still see flags

So what? You still gotta have base load and if you don't have hydro or thermal in the area that means non renewable.

Electricity must always be produced at the same it's used. If you can't do that you have to shut down parts of the grid.

This is retarded, if our ability to provide energy always outperformed demand then that would drive prices down and make the manufacturing of goods and provision of services so much cheaper. Capital would simply flow from energy infrastructure in to products.

The only thing that matters is how much an energy source costs to provide 1 MWH, capitalism only means that we continue to use conventional energy sources because the cost per unit is cheaper. That will change over time, and as technology improves and fossil fuels diminish there will be a greater need to engineer superior renewable technology.

Also do people really think that ExxonMobil, Chevron, BP, Shell etc. are all going to simply shut up shop when the oil runs out? If they're actually the brutal capitalists that they're made out to be then they'll be the biggest innovators in alternative energy advances because they have a business to maintain.

This is going to be conveniently ignored, I guess.

I'll just explain why it matters in case somebody wonders:

If the energy production is higher than consumption frequency and voltage rise. If it's lower, frequency and voltage drop. If you can't regulate them to keep it in the 10% from native values you the troubles will start.

From blackouts(after the voltage drops too much) to overloads followed by blackouts(after it cooks your stuff though). It's really a bitch. In conventional powerplants - even water powerplants, you can easily regulate the output in some ranges. For solar energy you can't really do anything. For wind you can install brakes but you don't have to be techie to understand why using brakes for extended period of time only to slow-down the spin(not to stop it) is bad idea.

>Africa is poor and destitute because the majority of its people suffer under incredibly corrupt and exploitative regimes that essentially serve as the personal army and enforcers of a dictator and his small circle of elite supporters.

The chaotic regimes are just a symptom of a larger problem. The truth is, even if you went in to places like Sudan and and installed a wonderful democratic system today, it would violently implode and turn into another shithole before the weekend.

These regions are socially incompatible with statehood. The states need to be broken down into their constituent tribes/ethnic groups, then the IMF, World Bank and Western charities need to step away and let these states have their own 1789 moment.

>cost per unit
the problem with most renewable fuels is that they only work in certain conditions m8

solar only works when the sun is out, wind only works when it's windy and so on

you NEED some 24/7 power generation capacity, and for most purposes that's coal and gas. if communists stopped fucking shit up, we could move over to nuclear and shit would be a lot more efficient.

what we should be doing is pursuing better energy STORAGE technologies, not energy generation technologies. a solar panel with 80% efficiency doesn't mean shit if you can't store the energy it produces for the night.

Solar and wind have very high maintenance costs. The only real cheap renewable energy is hydraulic however it usually can have a big impact on the region and isn't available everywhere.

The real most effective energy source is nuclear, but hippies hate it

No wonder commies migrated to environmentalist when ussr dropped

You are completly off the mark. Factually incorrect.

Why do you even mention big companies? You know theyare the ones lobbying against renewables?

>very low maintenance cost
They need completely replaced every 5-20 years. Hardly "very low maintenance".

Did someone say post-scarcity?

>own and maintain a wind and solar farm
>sell power to people
>capitalism as usual

do you really expect everyone to be able to affort the massive capital needed to power their own homes? what about the millions of people that live in apartments? this argument is retarded.

False.

Depends on the part of it.

Batteries - 10 years max.

Inverters - 20-25 years but mostly due to getting outdated in that timeframe

Panels themselves up to 20 years, depending on location.

>Solar not viable
>New england homeowner with solar
>Electric bill net $0

Yeah, sure buddy

>you totally didnt take those numbers out of your ass

I know you have to protect capitalism with your life, but try to be factual about it atleast

Which kind of renewable doesn't need replaced that often?
Wind does. Solar does.

Ontario redpilled me on renewable energy. Fucking windfarms and solar subsidies ballooning hydro costs to produce less than a single fucking percent of the province's energy while constantly breaking down and killing a fuckload of birds.

Fuck renewable energy. If it isn't hydro, it fucking doesn't work in a centralized power infrastructure and should be left to individuals while reliable energy is provided from nuclear plants or hydro where avaliable.

actually he's right on the inverter number, most new-ish ones last 25 years or so. iirc panels lose 1% of their generating capacity a year, and batteries generally get fucked in 10 years or so depending on architecture. the tesla power wall (which is basically the battery bank out of a model s) will last something like 20 years or so before losing most of it's capacity.

No I don't.

I work in energetic group, suits thought about making their own solar/wind farms but it simply didn't add up if they didn't get subsidies for it.

I'm still waiting for the answer to the regulation problem though :^)

I agree that energy storage is what would really be a game changer. What I'm disputing is the idea that renewables are being held back by evil capitalism rather than basic economic facts and things as simple as inertia, where infrastructure requires particular fuel to perform and the cost of updating is too great in the short term.

How can you not understand my point about big companies? Everyone knows that fossil fuels can't be used forever and that eventually we will have to move on to alternatives. Do you really think these big companies will not move to new energy to keep themselves in business? This is already happening.

What they lobby for is sensilbe policy towards conventional energy sources instead of fucktard politicians getting caught up in climate memes because it's popular without realising the economic harm it does.

(You)

Then you would know those numbers vary depending on quality from the beginning. Those windturbines decades ago only lasted for 15-20 years, yeah, but we have way better windturbines now. You are just trying to paint it as economically unviable

They arent moving to new energy because they themselves are imposing so mny regulations on the renewables market that its very difficult to make it economically viable

Dear OP, why do you care about African niggers so much?

>inb4 bbc troll

Well your anecdotal evidence sure convinced me.
If only our politicians and business leaders could hear your case, I'm sure every city in America could be powered by solar if we just gave it a chance.

>They arent moving to new energy because they themselves are imposing so mny regulations on the renewables market that its very difficult to make it economically viable
Not that user, but you agree that the problem is the absence of capitalism and not capitalism itself correct?

greenzu.com/solar-pv-inverter
>As a result, most inverters need replacement after about 11 years of service. Replacing an inverter is usually the most expensive aspect of a solar system, with replacement costs ranging between $3,000 and $20,000 each time.

ag.ndsu.edu/energy/energy-economics/faqs-1/how-long-do-wind-turbines-last
>Wind turbines do not last forever. Small wind turbines have a highly variable lifespan depending on construction quality. While wind turbine technology is constantly improving, even the most sturdy wind turbines still require annual maintenance and do wear out. For example, gearboxes generally need to be rebuilt every eight to 10 years. Consequently, a turbine’s economic life is finite. In addition, Investors often fail to budget for removal costs. North Dakota has instituted a decommissioning policy that requires new wind projects to set aside sufficient capital to remove old towers when they are no longer utilized.

Turbines have lots of moving parts all of which love to break. It's not just windmill with shaft going nowhere, dunno if you realise it.

And their output is abysmal when compared to steam turbines in any other kind of power plant so the higher maintenance costs are huge.

Thats not a response to what i said at all. I agreed windturbines used to be shit quality

>they themselves are imposing so mny regulations on the renewables market that its very difficult to make it economically viable

That's retarded. What are these regulations? How much do they cost renewable providers/manufacturers?

Most countries have been offering subsidies and grants on these energy sources to encourage their use. It's removing subsidy that makes them unviable because they aren't yet technologically at the point where it is a serious solution to our energy needs.

sans the concubines

could go some of those

>used to be
What evidence do you have that they are magically non-mechanical?
Did they fall for the brush free meme too? :^)

Just like the internet, right?

what? fire ruins soil? you are restarded.

>renewables
>not pushed for profit incentive

You people are such children.

When I learned it's actually good.

That slut's argument is shit. There is a demand at a set price, and the offer structures itself against it. Scarcity isn't the issue; it's the cost of exploiting versus the cost of offer. In fact, a low scarcity resource is going to thrive way more under capitalism than a high scarcity one, unless the scarce resource is either way cheaper to use or has a property the other doesn't, which makes it viable for use.

So basically, that slut has commie-tier logic. The impediment to renewable energy is the cost of acquiring it - almost every method we have costs a fair bit (but prices have been steadily going down, and are getting more and more competitive) and is wasteful (due to lack of storage, but the cost of storage is going down as well).

I'm pro-renewable energy for multiple reasons and not just environmental issues (I won't discuss that now though, as it's not really the thing Cred Forums can be convinced on, so idc). Ask me the non-environmental reasons if you will.

Correct.

The evil capitalist morse code cartel tried to stop the internet from being made since it would cut into their profits, but thanks to the kind-hearted Silicon Valley charities we now we all get the internet for absolutely free and there is no such thing as "line rental charges" or an "internet service provider".

>renewable energy means infinite power source
>renewable = invalidation of scarcity theory

lefty-cucks are funny when they pretend to know what they're talking about.

That doesn't make any sense. A resource that doesn't run out (in human perspective) still needs to be made available. The deciding factor is energy density and production cost. Renewables are mostly shit tier in both respects, while fossil fuels aren't.

But how are you going to fuel the globalist economy without constant demand for Oil, goyim?

>tfw we're leaving the EU just as Junker lays out his EU funded "free" wifi

This, remember when the horse and buggy cartel tried to assassinate Henry Ford?

Its all about sizing and storage once the Tesla home battery is more widely available it will be a tipping point for power generation.

>Battery topped off, sunny day, nobody home, 30 - 80% goes to the grid

>cloudy day, grid down, people home, battery typically not touched until sundown. Neighbors burning candles like 14th century monks

0 birds chopped up

kek Bojo's not-so-subtly threatening the EU with a roach infestation.

As for the wifi plan, it doesn't sound that good.
>spanning parks, libraries, and other public spaces
The "free" wifi will cost you more in taxes every year than you would save on mobile data charges.
I wonder which lucky lobbyist's company got the contract to set that colossal waste of money up...

you are literally retarded.
shitty strawman too

you know its possible to compete for state-contracts. how do you think Elon Musk makes his money?

you cant be this retarded. i wont accept it

Not true. We don't use renewable energy because of the worlds dependence on oil. "not scarce" has nothing to do with it, it's the oil barons and their families wanting to retain their power, wealth, and influence, so they use all of the aformentioned traits to buy up and hide all emerging technologies. Like the electric car.

Patents for the electric car are almost a century old. They aren't big because they don't use as much oil as normal cars. It keeps countries dependent on oil and it's byproducts.

Oil is cheap, but so is renewables. But lobbyists with their regulations and chrony capitalism make it impossible to make money in a captialist society

That must be old info the 3.5kwh inverter for my house retails for $1200, the biggest price disparity comes if you move to an islanding inverter, which allows off-grid use, increases the price by 20 - 50%

I'm not saying its perfect, but, the only good from the government meddling is driving down the cost

This is a ruse. They'll claim that this is what the people want to hear (to stifle claims of unfairness or one-sidedness, they can say that it was "WE THE PEOPLE" that decided what to ask, but as always, they'll substitute their own questions and votes when needed.

they've already deleted several very good questions, thinking that the MSM is going to keep their word on being honest and unbiased is just foolish. They've got no responsibility to report anything resembling the truth, they're classified as entertainment, just like Adventure Time, and Dexter.

>you know its possible to compete for state-contracts
Yes but once you have the contract you can do whatever you want, you can even demand more money and nothing will happen because it would look politically bad if a politician admitted to any fault.

It's from a website trying to sell you solar panels m8.

>oil is used for nothing but energy

You don't understand how supply and demand work, do you? Do you suggest we just hook like a billion AA batteries to a wind turbine, charge them all, and then we can power a whole city for a little while?

Current gen batteries suck at holding power. We'd never be able to store enough power to make due for a city's power needs for a single week. What happens when the wind doesn't blow strongly enough to generate power for a week or two? This is just one issue.

Obviously the contract isn't meant to last forever, but for a couple years

You are wrong about the batteries

Batteries arent being developed and improved fast enough because of corruption and chronyism

Government contracting private companies is just as bad as the government doing the job itself. It just transfers its monopoly power to a private company that doesn't have to face competition.

I saw a video of a new high capacity battery designed specifically for renewable energies recently

...which I can't find the source of right now

Nuclear > renewable

LOL, very naive of you.
The contracts get renewed and the public is kept in the dark about it all because it's not results that matter when the state gets involved.

No, they don't exist for physical reasons. The best storage method we currently have is fly wheels. Iirc there's about $50m worth of fly wheels spinning about in America """storing""" wind power.

Renewable energy is not nearly as efficient as nuclear energy.

It's also ugly as fuck as scars the landscape. Seeing a green valley dotted with tens of white turbines always upsets me.

This

But, there always needs to be a backup

You think I don't know what a PFI is? Ahmed please, the UK is pretty much the world leader in these things.

Let me tell you - it doesn't fucking work. The companies just bid very low and bump up the price later with no repercussions.

Not only that, but there's pretty much zero risk involved for the company with the contract. If it starts going wrong, the state just pumps more and more money into the project. And if it goes well, then you can almost guarantee that the state has wildly overpaid for the project anyway.
It's ludicrous. At the end of the day, the taxpayer is the one who always ends up getting fucked (especially in this gay little wifi scheme, since a lot of people like the olds or people who care about their privacy won't even use it but will still have to pay for it). It's just a question of how hard you're going to get fucked.

Since when does aesthetics decide whats most viable and economically sound?

Such a fucking bad argument

Home solar power has been getting pretty popular you can get some pretty heavy duty batteries then you just more or less get allot of them and you can hold a charge for X amount of days.

the actual issue with current batteries from what i've seen is that the more they hold the more dangerous they become especially when you daisy chain them together in a big lump like most do with private setups.

[Citation Needed]

musk isn't a valid example here m8, he brought a completely new product to market with tesla. which imo is a great thing for the government to subsidize if they have to subsidize something.

Im talking SpaceX here, not Tesla

The only real problem with modern nuclear power is the waste, which we still don't have a decent solution to

Germany is working on making a literal mini-Sun, maybe fusion will work? But I feel like you're going to have to put more energy into the system, maybe I'm crazy

I have never seen someone so in denial

"renewable" isn't a backup, it's a supplement
it also requires that the main supply runs inefficiently to cope with the varying "renewable" output

If denial means wanting substantiated proof when someone makes wild claims, then sure, im in denial

then you're absolutely full of shit, spacex runs on the exact same contracts that ULA gets when it's doing government work, and they do a LOT of private launches as well. as for state funding, that's for shit like sites that produce jobs and whatnot. i know the governor of texas wants to give spacex a ton of money because they're building a launch site there.

if you moved to the US and started a rocket company you'd be eligible for exactly the same contracts mate.

That's exactly the problem, the daisy chain setup. Fires, explosions, all from "efficiently" working renewable energy.

These houses are all still hooked up to the power grid, too. Most of these people aren't "off the grid", they generate extra power for the power companies to use when they need it. If you lack strong or direct enough sunlight, you don't gather any power. As another user said, they're pretty useless outside of the equator, they're more of a novelty "look at how green and environmentally friendly I am" brag to your neighbors.

Liquid floride thorium reactor everything else is a meme

What the fuck are you talking about?

SpaceX fight for contracts to get subsidized when it comes to satellites and launches

How is that bullshit? Are you literally retarded?

>If renewable energy is 'free' and abundant, then how come it costs so much to produce and distribute?

it dosen't. Solar panels produce cheaper electricity then fossil fuel in large parts of the world. And it's estimated that the same will be true in germany in 10 years, and germany isen't so sunny. And hydropower plants is also a very cheap way to produce electrisity.

If SpaceX shits the bed on the contract, then no one really cares. They have enough money for the state to sue anyway. Musk needs state approval more than he needs state funding, that's pretty much why they're doing these silly contracts. It's not like he's launching spy satellites, it's all boring shite.

We're talking about hospitals, train lines, schools and roads here. Critical contracts that the state can't just cancel if the contact holder fucks up. The bidders know this.

>to get subsidized
How the fuck is it subsidy when SpaceX is taking GOVERNMENT cargo, putting it on THEIR ROCKET, and blasting it into space FOR THE GOVERNMENT?

a subsidy is defined as:

>a sum of money granted by the state or a public body to help an industry or business keep the price of a commodity or service low.

SpaceX isn't relying on government money to keep it's costs low, that's a function of it's production model (google vertical production). So it's not a subsidy.

SpaceX uses government CONTRACTS. They fought to be fairly recognized as a launch provider, since ULA was hogging all of the US Gov contracts. That's not begging for subsidy. If they were begging for subsidy, they would go full ULA and maximize the cost of launch, but instead they're making it as low as possible, undercutting ULA by 20 million dollars or more.

The redpill is that renewable energy is a farce that costs more than it's economical value (hence needing subsidies to be market competitive), and production of installations is a heavy industry that pollutes more than a nuclear power plant ever could hope to.

Meanwhile, consuming fossil fuels for energy will eventually result in a price spike. We should become reliant on modern nuclear installations, and hang in there until fusion becomes viable. This will reduce our overall oil consumption and emissions, up to the point where we can power everything using fusion.

If further emissions reductions are to be had, look at heavy industry and ships instead of automotive and electricity generation.

ITT retarded commies.

>Also, how do you plan to charge all of those electric cars at night time when people aren't driving them? What is the efficiency of a solar panel at night?

being this retarded. Have you heard of something called a battery?

>Corruption, lobbies and capitalism can destroy renewables' market value
No. Any sane economist inside that company would simply fuck off and go renewable if it were an economically viable choice. Renewable, as of right now, is only economically sound when you get a buttload of subsidies.

Sure mate

Nice argument btw

Batteries aren't used to store "renewable" energy.

My answer is the same as the one you responded to

You literally asked the question to the respond.

What are shit batteries? What are costs?

Renewable energy right now, with the technology we have, is a fucking scam. Until we have a good method to store surplus renewable energy is shit.

Also solar panels never pay themselves, because you have to replace them before you get to the point of having free energy.

Nuclear energy despise the memes is the cleanest, cheapest and most trustworthy energy we have now.

No they arent. Obama throws billions every year at renewables and they still account for

Yes they are

Yeah, you can like, just go and plug in your tv into the water and get renewable energy. It's everywhere man, capitalists just don't want you to know that.

It's very simple.

There is a demand for energy.
If there is no scarcity affecting renewable fuels, it's market price would be extremely low - and therefore dominate the market.

As it sits, this is not the case. So called renewable sources of energy are expensive. The maintenance is high, and because they're all kind of hard to take energy out of, unlike nuclear and fossils, you're not getting much return on that maintenance investment

Depending on where you live in america i've heard of some people getting money from the excess power there pumping into the system or simply having there powerbill drop to under a 100$ etc.

the daisy chain is not a a real issue unless you buy from china and shit like that allot of these people just order whatever and also are setting most of the crap up off youtube videos and books crap like that.

thing is about the solar panel houses there only really viable as a means to cutting back on your power bill so long as you able to buy cheap replacement panels.

Renewable energy is based on scarcity. Solar panels, wind turbines, and damns all require materials to produce.

Simple

There is a demand for food in africa
People are still starving

That argument is not viable, and I have discredited it multiple times already

are you fucking retarded? It's not like they invented new electrons. OFC you can store the power in batteries. You just need to hook your solar cells up.

>The redpill is that renewable energy is a farce that costs more than it's economical value (hence needing subsidies to be market competitive)

It's more that the renewable energy isn't in place yet, so it has an implementation cost

Subsidising companies to do it is to offset the implementation

It wouldn't be a problem if people couldn't just import cheaper goods from other countries that don't have any interest in different fuel sources

>elements to build said reactor=scarce
>land to build reactor=scarce

Is this a fucking joke? Do you realize you need several times the land needed for a nuclear plant for solar panels/windmills to power up a city?

Also windmills are constructed with a shit ton of iron.

Last but not least, you need to read the small letter on green cities

Example

>Mcfaggottown in Europe became full green
>Then you read only 20% of the power comes from renewable energies
>Then if you read more carefully...that 20% is more expensive than the other 80%
>And if you keep reading...the city was just a 2500 people small town

Always the same fucking lies

I think people need to see how much better modern nuclear power plants are compared to the shitty ones made 30 years ago

Are you familiar with the concept of "profit"?

Simple

You are a retard
You still post shit here like you know something

>There is a demand for food in africa
>People are still starving

Those are the same two sentences

>Renewable energy products don't have any production cost or maintenance cost.

Plus, Texas, N. Dakota, Alaska, and Russia produce a shitton of oil, you can just cut the Saudis out of the industry.

Maybe we don't use it because it's not enough to fill base demand when the wind slows down or the clouds come out.

Nuclear is always the answer.

My point is that demand doesn't mean its automatically happening

There are other factors involved, just saying the market will decide is stupid as fuck if you're gonna be regulating the market and making it difficult for it to flood through

>it's not like they invented new electrons
you don't invent new electrons

your knowledge is 5 years old. Look at solar cell prices it have droped insanely mutch. You will se solar cells pop up here and there in the coming years.

and also this.

now you start baiting when you understand how retarded you was. But before you genuinely belived what you sayed.

Chernobyl the poster boy for the horrors of nuclear plants was an outdated illegal piece of shit in the 80s that was using technology prohibited since decades ago. It was straight from the 60s the technology it used.

Look at Japan, their reactor melted and they didnt have a single death. Thats how safe it is nuclear energy. You can have a reactor destroyed in an Earthquake and not affect shit.

it looks shitty and it kills birds

wtf are wrong with you tards

that lookes realy cool i think.

birds

>What is Solyndra?

swedecucks crying for government intervention
typical

birds are important to the ecosystem

Why can't we just turn the worlds deserts into solar farms

Why do you think so?

Im asking for deregulation of renewables energy to let it become a viable option

You do know that most renewables aren't the solar panel you own in your house, right?
Do you know how a battery works?

how many bird deaths do we talk about?

it's not regulated it's heavily invested in by government's stolen funds and it just burns money into oblivion

thousands

Are you retarded

Do you have any citations?

When I found out the number of nuclear reactors the French have.

>Jealous

explain to me why you can't connect a battery to a solar panel to store the energy?

the united states government

This!
Why isn't this a thing everywhere?

how many bird deaths per m^2 solar panales? Otherwise your number is hard to put in size.

Cred Forums obsessed with nuclear energy meanwhile if you add one to every city and have massive radiation spewing out all the time people will be deformed and mental and just because you cant really directly observe the radiation they believe its harmless

you can live by a nuclear reactor im not going to

You can connect a battery to one solar panel, you can't connect a batter to a solar power plant. They're not capable of storing that much energy efficiently.

Bullshit. If I buy up and produce the renewable energy i can meter it and sell it hipsters at a premium and when oil goes tits up I'll have the only viable option left as a monopoly. Renewable energy fits just fine in capitalism

...

That's retarded. With free energy, everything else produced becomes that much less expensive. In a capitalist system, producers would be all over that.

Oh, but then thermodynamics. Frankly, I blame colonialism for their eurocentric "science."

...

Thats not a citation

Not true, and a strawan

>have massive radiation spewing out all the time
:^)

That's not what a strawman is.

ya people who live by nuclear reactors get sick

during normal operation hours even when there is not a catastrophic meltdown going on

You've only been posting shit (shitposting) in this thread

How about you contribute meaningfully?

We dont have the technology to store the energy to power up a city with batteries. Also, pretty sure the millions batteries needed would use "scarce materials" too and degrade each 2 or 3 years.

and your point is? You asked how they would charge cars during the night? Send the energy to the charging poles during the day that have batteries that they use during the night. What is your problem.

>Thats not a citation
Prove it. Source?

:^)

Mad bcz i completely BTFO you earlier?

You mean the way environmentalists paint all opposing forms of energy like coal? Grow the fuck up. Both sides are bigoted and irrational.

What do you mean not true. If I have a monopoly on renewables then I can absolutely what I want with it including price gauging.

...

[Citation needed]

But why do you claim someone has a monopoly at all?

It's not possible to have monopoly on renewables

I asked no such thing.
Again, you cannot connect batteries to a solar power plant.

Haha k stay mad britbong

Damn it Russia, fine, I'll bite.

What the fuck is this? How is immortality related to renewables?

Radiation is not very hard to contain

Again, 30 year old problems

Except a power station cannot cycle up and down every fucking day. This destroys the plant, it will collapse in on itself from metal fatigue and corrosion. Once a boiler is running and the reheat & superheated ducts are open, the power station stays "on" for thirty years. You are not saving anything because the power station must run at it's designed capacity and nothing else. You cannot simply "dial down" the atomized coal powder being injected into a dry fluid bed you retarded fucking pot heads.

You know what a cooler is?

How do you think nuclear plants work? They cool themselves with the water,

Thats literally the stupidest argument ive read in the entire thread

Just balance the cooler appropriatly depending on the time of the day

>Also, pretty sure the millions batteries needed would use "scarce materials" too and degrade each 2 or 3 years.

>cars

how many cars are there? Billion right.
And what do each car have? Yes a battery. And they don't degrade in a few years. Are you guys even using your brains?

And i'm not talking power plant to a battery storage facilety. I'm talking about your own solar panales on your roof that you use to power your house. You can easily have evry bulding setup with solar panales that have batteries connected to them so they can charge the cars during the night.

I fucking hate stupid pot heads.

I'm not talking about a plant.

this was the one i responded to. And this

That's not how it works you moronic cuck. People sell their excess solar power back to the power company then buy gas power at night.

Africa is poor because it is inhabited by dumb niggers

But then how will I know who the poor people are?

Sure I can. I'll own every wind farm,geo thermal and solar power plant on the planet and whatever else comes along. The resources may be theoretically infinite, but the means to convert to power will be limited enough. Even if one day we just pull it out of the air, i could own the tech that makes that possible. Ease of access will lower the price sure, but renewable energy still fits with capitalism.

This is your most retarded post yet.

You're talking about connecting a battery to a wire connected to the solar plant.

Nope, you just said the same thing you said in the first one

>what are load following power plants

>american know about one system
>evry system need to work the same

kys retarded american. Don't bother posting you need european inteligence to post in these threads. Go to the bait threads insted.

Misread what he said

You save the excess energy in the battery, whats the issue exactly?

wtf are you even talking about you stupid nigger.

read this

>44 posts by this ID

At some point you have to step back and just admire Sweden's absolute and utter refusal to think about what he's saying.
It's bold. I like it.

why not just find a safer method to get infinite energy than investing into nuclear so much

shits very expensive and complicated
and too hard to manage on a human level

too many moving parts
too much management
too much waste

do u get it

its not something you base the world on

get smarter and dont get hell bent on one chaotic extreme way of making energy like mad scientists

>gaining an absolute monopoly on power generation by creating systems that operate forever for free, but still being able to charge for it, is not something a for-profit industry would be interested in
>solar is actually cheap and useful, but greedy for-profits would rather pay more money for dangerous and expensive mining and drilling so they can make less money
>women are paid a third less than men for doing the same job, but greedy companies won't hire women to save staffing costs because penis
>I deserve $15/hr to flip hamburgers

Libtard conspiracy theories make 9/11 Truthers look very reasonable.

Mhm

hes OP you giant retard nothing wierd about that when you have the retarded anglo sphere posting in your thread

No.

A boiler runs at a design temperature. Lowering the fuel feed rate and combustion ratio below the design temperature destroys boilers. I design them for a living kiddo. Plus you would need an I.d. or f.d. fan that was adjustable, which is 10x $$$$. Nobody is ever going to design a plant like that because it is a retarded idea. Also your argument about nuclear is invalid too, because by cooling the reactor to reduce production all you are doing is wasting the fissile material by neutering it with coolant. The fissile material is producing regardless of the cooled reactor harnessing the heat. All that does is take that potential energy and waste it by putting in coolant, instead of the normal energy production cycle.

All your idea does is waste more non renewable fuel. Its a nice sentiment but you'll have to dig deeper to solve this. Maybe you'd like to become a process engineer or instruments and controls engineer? I do both, its a nice gig. If you have zeal put a leash on it and let it pull you into a career.

>45 posts by this ID
JUST

if it works for me it should work for 300 million other people!

Im not even kidding, the beadyeyed anglosaxons thnik they can compete with superior scandianvian intelligence

Its funny, its like watching a small dog barking at its owner. Cute and harmless

You do know that nuclear reactors are shoveling essentially liquid gold into energy right? Seriously fucking expensive to do, until thorium gets more funding and a serious look at making it viable then that will be a load off.

Yes they are.

Source: housemate sells solar panels.

yup scandinavians will always be the superior race.

love that this was deleted

Renewable energy isn't free,and has its own costs. It's more expensive, because it has no delivery or method of storage that is efficient. You can keep oil in a drum, or coal in a big pile. You need complex infrastructure and storage methods for extra electricity.

The only thing approaching this infrastructural efficiency is hydrogen, but we don't have the ability to produce it in quantities that wouldn't jeapordize our water supply.

Because the batteries cannot hold that much energy and they can't charge/discharge so rapidly.

okay, I don't give a shit about privately owned solar panels
the problem is that they are not a replacement for normal power plants, they are supplements at best and a hindrance at worst when used on an industrial scale

I didn't mention nuclear power plants. Thorium plants aren't going to happen any time soon if governments continue to subsidise """renewable""" since it also destroys industry and research via high energy costs.

As far as I'm aware this thread is about industrial level solar panels. I've stated many times that I'm not talking about your solar panel at your house.

>capitalism prevents renewable energy
This meme that in a capitalist society everyone is forced to operate solely for profit at all times needs to die. Literally no one is stopping you and your Marxist buddies from developing renewable energy. I'd even pay for your brilliant invention if it worked and saved me the money I pay for fuel\electricity in the long run. You can have it all: save the environment, BTFO the evil oil corporations and become rich while retaining your moral superiority. Why aren't you doing it, faggot?

Renewable energy isn't as renewable as greenpeace nuts would like to think. It's not like you can purcahse a solar panel/wind turbine and it'll keep working forever. In fact, they require a LOT of maintenance (see: wind turbine gearboxes)

Furthermore, many renewable energy generators require lots of rare earth metals to manufacture which are extremely scarce (e.g. neodymium) and are extracted mostly by methods which cause lots of environmental destruction

That is why I was surprised about his solution to the green supply gap (solar at night, no wind). Cooling nuclear reactors so they don't produce, allowing the green grid to produce, only wastes the potential energy of the nuclear fuel. We already waste the potential of that fuel as it is ...

This. Any of us can start our own company.

Its possible, with enough developement you fucking faggot. It might not be possibel today, but its definitely possible if we research it

This is literally retarded. Did you come to this thread just to shit all over it?

Not an argument.

Capitalism is fine with disruptive technologies because it creates new markets and forces old markets to adapt.

Corporatism on the other hand hates disruptive technologies like renewable energy, because (((corporations))) couldn't give a fuck about making the world a better place.

yes a suplment to nuclear and renewable energy. But the whole thing started by a aussie asking about how cares could charge during the night with solar panales. So there is alot of goal post moving from you. You will use sevral renewable energy sources togheter for fossil independence. Solar, water, termal and wind and you always have nuclear if there is a need or if 100% renewable is to expensive.

cars*

No it isn't, there are physical limits to things. You can only hold so much energy in a battery, even at 100% efficiency (which you also cannot achieve for physical reasons).

...

>average electric bill per year: $1320
>over 30 years: $39,600

>solar panels: $30000 (lasts about 30 years)
>batteries: $5000 (lasts 5 years at best)
>over 30 years: $30000

>money saved going full solar: -$20400

That's retarded, do you think solar panels and dams are free?

You're 100% correct, but the end game is to regulate lifestyles of people who the Marxists do not like.

It's environmental tyranny, they are trying to force this ideology tied to politics and morality.

This.
I'll also add that in corporatism any hint of a renewable resource or cure for cancer would be snuffed out in a heartbeat using the governments they control to do their bidding.

>So there is alot of goal post moving from you
You were talking about the public car charging posts, those are powered by industrial plants.

>100% renewable is to expensive
Not only would if be too expensive if it were possible, it isn't possible.

I've been perfectly clear from the start that I'm not talking about the solar panel you have on your roof.
You on the other hand started talking about public car charging posts, which are powered by industrial plants. Whichever swede it was that mentioned it first.

This. This is why at least in America, expensive and inefficient sources like wind and solar will never be able to take off.

Tbqh familia we have to develop fusion power or we're fucked

This girl clearly doesn't understand capitalism
Scarcity isn't inherent to capitalism, it is supply and demand. If things needed to be scarce to be marketable then bottled water wouldn't be an industry

Tesla powerwall

If anything, corrupt politicians push for renewable energy so their cronies can get those sweet subsidies. We shouldn't be giving out subsidies for energy sources that can't finance themselves.

>the problem is scarcity
oh wow she's a dumb gommie. There is no immediate end to fossil fuels. the problem with oil is far more complex.
>renewable energy isn't marketable
free shit is marketable. she certainly bought into the idea

the problem is regulations making energy production much more expensive, especially nuclear; and a usurious financial system that makes long term investments not profitable.

Lol, are you serious?

You clearly have no idea how much big petroleum have changed the political debate

Kys subhuman slavshit

That's the most fucking stupid argument I've ever heard.

Renewables are humidity in the air, oil and coal are a well. Sure, you could precipitate moisture from the air around you, but to do so you'd need a lot of specialist equipment, air that's high in humidity, etc. It's much faster and easier to take a bucket and go for a walk.

30000$ more like 20000$ you will have 5 extra kilowatt with that mutch panales

that is like a 9000$ earn

>people actually discussing wind power or hydro currents
Both of those have a greater impact on the environment that non-renewables

Capitalism is the most efficient method to allocating scarce resources.

None scarce resources do not undermine capitalism.

Are you stupid? Petroleum get excise tax added to it, making it more expensive to use and renewable energy gets government subsidies making it cheaper to use.
Even with corrupt government officials pushing for renewables they still can't compete with oil.

He's resorted to name calling

The entire green energy sector is not profitable right now. The surge we are witnessing is caused by government money, such as grants and subsidies. Without that the entire green energy market is not profitable and would implode on itself. You can't name call around this fact. The entire green energy market is a facade used to vacuum up opponents to the petroleum dollar before they become a threat (profitable). There are too many artificial composites and textiles needed to produce green energy plants, they themselves are not good for the environment and you are in denial about that too.

Your emotional appeal is created by a financial bubble. A bubble created by uneducated liberals in politics, wishful thinking and ignorance.

>not knowing what scarcity means
Even dirt and water cost money you dumb fucking commie.

Tell you what, swedefriend. You go ahead and outfit all your house and cars and shit with renewable energy and stuff. I'll go ahead and stay with fossil fuels. Deal? All right.

That depends, i mean whats your idea of renewable energy?

solar (average solar panel takes 30 years to make up for in price)?

wind (more harmful to the environment than fossil fuels, ironically)?

bio-diesel (pretty based)?

geothermal (based)?

hydro? (super based)

Honestly I don't think anyone on Cred Forums hates renewable energy, it's just that its nowhere near efficient as fossil fuels... and people want shit that is safe and works.

On that topic, I do think nuclear energy is being suppressed instead of harnessed in the US - and that can be attributed to special interests.

Nuclear energy is the ultimate red-pill. Would never be a problem in a homogeneous society.

Nice list

Proved nothing though

No, 39600 - 50000 is still -10400. 50000 is bigger than 39600, so when you subtract the difference you get a number that's lower than zero. I know they don't teach division in Somalia but it's not that hard.

Pretty much this, well said
and even with those subsidies those solar plants are still massive money sinks.
latimes.com/business/la-fi-solarcity-earnings-20160809-snap-story.html

Way I see it. Renewable energy is the future.
But the capitalists need to figure out a way to profit from it, so you got oil tycoons and company's investing in it, with more than just their wallets, but assets as well. Most renewable energy machines and devices , etc. Need oil to produce. It's a perfect segway for them. Slowly lobby for carbon taxes, while transitioning their oil from mainly gasoline to consumer products and wind mills and shit. Eventually gas will be only for trains, trucks, jets, etc. Then the elite bastards benefit from it all.

NUCLEAR POWER BEST POWER

FUCKING ATOMS AND SHIT MAN, HOW DO THEY WORK

CAN'T WAIT FOR FUSION, THEY WE'LL REALLY BE HARNESSING THE POWER OF THE SUN, FUCK SOLAR THAT'S NOT REALLY HARNESSING THE POWER OF THE SUN JUST ABSORBING POWER THROUGH SOLAR SEMEN.

It's a sham.
The energy wasted on making a solar panel is more than it will produce in its lifetime.

>tfw almost all, scalable, advances in renewable energies have came from for-profit, capitalist enterprise.

Babby's first Marxism course.

Renewable energy doesn't take off because it's more expensive than it is to drill up, pump, refine, and ship oil. Translation: It's fucking expensive.

Dumb cunt is confusing 'planned obsolescence' for the obvious fact the technology isn't viable enough yet to replace oil.

Hydro destroys the environment too, just in a different way.
This isn't true with the new generation of solar panels. Thin-film solar produce much more energy, but they won't break even investment-wise without subsidies.